By Charles Layton
This evening (Wednesday, August 3), Neptune’s Zoning Board of Adjustment will hear further testimony on a builder’s proposal to encroach on Ocean Grove’s famous “flared setback” along Ocean Pathway. So far, the board has only heard one side of this argument – the builder’s side. Given the issue’s importance, the board should hear fuller evidence and alternative points of view.
The flared setback was designed by Ocean Grove’s founders. Under their plan, each house along Ocean Pathway and other east-to-west streets was set back in lines that widen toward the ocean from Central Avenue to Ocean Avenue. The purpose was to provide ocean views and sea breezes for homes up to two blocks inland along these avenues. It is a good neighbor policy, preventing one home owner from depriving others of some of the benefits of seaside living. On a Google satellite photo (for which, click here and type in “ocean grove”) one can see the pattern clearly along Main, Heck, Embury and other avenues, but especially along Ocean Pathway.
“Ocean Grove appears to be the earliest user of this device. Taken within the context of urban planning, Ocean Grove is significant not only on a national scale, but on a world scale as well.” Those words are from Ocean Grove’s nomination form submitted to the Department of the Interior when the town was seeking to become a National Historic District. The flared setback was one of the primary justifications for our national historic status.
The Historic Preservation Commission’s guidelines, as expressed in a Township ordinance, say this: “The ‘flare’ must be preserved. Where applicable, proposed improvements shall NOT infringe upon the delineated ‘Flare’ and its historic importance to the Historic District of Ocean Grove.” (The boldface and underline are part of the document, emphasizing the point.)
The setback was observed and enforced rather strictly during Ocean Grove’s so-called period of historical significance – from its founding in 1869 to about 1910. Some time after that, and into the 1970s, some people disregarded the rules and put porches, stairways and additions out into the flare. After 1975, however, when the Grove became a historic district, the flared setback began to be enforced more seriously for new buildings and additions. Indeed, many argue that failure to protect this setback could at some point endanger the town’s national historic designation.
Which brings us to the issue now before the Zoning Board. Local builder Hans Kretschman is proposing to build two houses on the lots where the Manchester Inn stood before its destruction in last year’s fire. Kretschman is seeking a variance to the setback rule on the grounds that these houses will replicate two buildings that had stood on those lots prior to 1910. He argues that the historic buildings he intends to replicate encroached into the flared setback, so his buildings should be allowed to do that also. (Go here to read our previous article, containing a fuller account of his argument.)
The claim that those original buildings violated the setback is questionable, however. In fact, according to Sanborn Maps from the 1905-1910 period, the structures that stood on the Manchester site appear to have observed the flared setback rule. Mr. Kretschman’s attorney has not submitted those maps into evidence, nor have they been mentioned in testimony, although they are considered the most authoritative record of the building footprints of the time. (They were originally created for assessing fire insurance liability – serious business.)
Later, apparently in the 1920s, the single building that replaced and subsumed the two earlier ones – and which became the modern Manchester Inn – did have a porch that encroached into the setback. But that came after, not during, the period of historical significance. It is therefore hard to see how one could justify having a new building encroach into the setback by arguing that doing so would respect the site’s historical integrity.
At best, the history of the Manchester property is unclear based on evidence submitted to the Zoning Board thus far. So, rather than making a decision and setting a precedent based on one side of an argument, one would hope that the board would take its time and investigate all available evidence, including the Sanborn maps. On a matter of such importance – not just to Kretschman but to the whole town – it would be foolish to rush.
-0-
NOTE: The above-referenced meeting was held on Wednesday evening. For a report on the outcome, click here.
Hi Anonymous,
The most valuable thing I learned while getting my Ph.D. from Columbia University in Electrical Engineering is that I am able to research and interpret complex problems both within and outside my specific field of expertise — particularly when the pertinent material is written in clear English, as the Guidelines and Standards are.
Jensen….are u a qualified historic architect, respected and well-regarded in the field? What are your credentials?
Hi Crazy — Just a quick comment regarding the portion of your response directed to me. This is the opening of the Guidelines:
“When a contemporary depiction is required to understand and interpret a property’s historic value (including the re-creation of missing components in a historic district or site); when no other property with the same associative value has survived; and when sufficient historical documentation exists to ensure an accurate reproduction, Reconstruction may be considered as a treatment.”
Upon continued reading it becomes clear that reconstruction is neither warranted, nor possible, in this case. Just looking at these opening sentences, Ocean Grove can easily be understood as an historic district with its remaining stock of authentic Victorian houses. Two appropriately-sized (and equally “lovely”) modern buildings in the Victorian style that sit well within the current zoning regulations would easily serve the same purpose of reestablishing the visual integrity of Ocean Pathway.
Jensen and Anonymous…perhaps you missed the meetings or at least the first one? Funny….Did you not see the photographs of the original basements as exhibits? Did you not go to Town Hall to review the submission papers before expressing your opinion? Did you not hear a Board member indicate they “pinned” the east side of the west building on the original footing? Did you not read the definition for Reconstruction under the Guidelines? I will have to respectfully differ from your knowledgeable opinion.
Call Me Crazy: I think you better check your facts. What “archaeological evidence” could they have possibly found after the bulldozers cleared the site following the fire? You refer to “surveys.” Are the surveys you refer to of the two original buildings or The Manchester? It is my understanding from reading Blogfinger that they are not one and the same. Please explain how a photo can show the location of a building on it’s site to within 6″? Were these photos taken from the air? When were they taken? Wasn’t Ocean Grove founded in 1870? The Wright Brothers flew their first plane in 1903. Please explain!
Call Me Crazy: The applications do not even come close to meeting the stringent requirements for undertaking a reconstruction as described in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction and Guidelines for Reconstructing Historic Buildings:
http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/standguide/reconstruct/reconstruct_index.htm.
Cthulu…to play devil’s advocate…what if someone was able to recreate the prior existing structure under the Secretary of the Interior Historic Guidelines for Reconstruction and plot the structure with not only archaeological evidence but surveys and photographs, to where it stood within 6 INCHES of its original location, which original construction was during the “period of significance” for the town? Should this embarrass the HPC or should it make them proud of the attempt at reconstruction? Also, based on Appendix I of Neptune’s Land Use Ordinance, would you call this a flare violation or an acceptable construction method in Ocean Grove? Just wondering.
If these structures had an existing condition on the lot, as in the existing stairs had remained and they were being incorporated back into the structure, this would totally make sense. Every other “fire structure” has been made to conform to the flare but for some reason, these two don’t? I get that these particular applicants had better representation, but that doesn’t change the zoning laws nor the clear-cut “no building in the flare” stance that has been in effect for over 25 years.
But this decision to violate the flare is ridiculous. Totally and utterly ridiculous, and it undermines the reputation of the ZBA and makes them look foolish and preferential. It undercuts the HPC immensely and quite frankly is a HUGE litigation risk to the township.
The Board’s decision to ignore the setback and height restrictions in this case is not a positive development for Ocean Grove. Others were required to observe existing requirements, some at considerable delay, sacrifice and expense.
I am not a fan of the HPC and their overzealous administration of historic preservation. However, I also do not believe that Planning Board exceptions are the way to address improvements needed in rules and governance. It’s inequitable, and does not solve the problem.
The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association has already set the stage for violating the founder’s plan for property in Ocean Grove by using part of the Ocean Pathway promenade for parking. If they can get that through the Board of Adjustment, why should we expect anything different for anyone else.
Thank you for an excellent, clearly written and informative article. I agree that the “flare” should be preserved, but could never explain and express it so eloquently. It is always fun and interesting to learn more of the reasoning behind OGs seemingly random and eccentric rules.
Well written, well researched, great editorial. I surely don’t believe that the flare should be violated.
.
That was the clearest, most concise and well-written explanation of the flared set-back that I have ever seen.
You know I totally agree with Miss Lisa. Thank you Mr. Layton for your research and editorial. I couldn’t agree with you more. Madeline Tugentman
I’m a second home resident who cannot be at the meeting tonight, but I wanted to register here my opposition to encroaching on the setback. I’ve never seen anything like it in a town plan, and this unique bit of OG layout should be preserved especially on Ocean Pathway, where it is most evident. If anyone is going to speak on behalf of homeowners who oppose the variance, please feel free to voice my opinion. -Jennifer Colyer, Olin Street
I believe the flared setback should be preserved.
Thank you, Mr. Layton, for such a well written and researched editorial.